NEWS MEDIA BILL OPPOSED Journalists Questioned At Length

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30880, 13 October 1965, Page 10

NEWS MEDIA BILL OPPOSED Journalists Questioned At Length

TNew Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, October 12. Journalists were questioned for nearly two hours today when the Statutes Revision Committee continued its hearing of evidence on the News Media Ownership Bill. Submissions were made by three representatives of the New Zealand Journalists’ Association.

Later an Auckland weekly newspaper owner. Mr N. E. Roseman, appeared on behalf of six newspaper owners publishing 10 weekly newspapers to protest against measures in the bill and to propose that it be discontinued in its present form.

To back up submissions made to the committee last Wednesday by the president of the New Zealand Journalists’ Association, Mr B. R. Gridley, three more representatives of that organisation appeared this morning. Counsel for the N.Z.J.A., Mr J. W. Turnbull, said it was difficult to see where the Government had obtained the idea for the bill. It had not stemmed from a public outcry, from journalists or from consultation with the legal profession. He told the committee it could be a good thing for some New Zealand newspapers to reflect, for instance, more South-east Asia thinking, but the Government intended that New Zealand minds should not be exposed to such intrusions. “Big Brother” Mr Turnbull referred to “a big brother type of attitude,” and asked if the next step would be to protect the public from overseas magazines and books. At this stage, said Mr Turnbull, New Zealand should not cut itself off from outside influences. “I have full confidence New Zealanders are well able to take care of themselves.” The immediate past president of the journalists’ association, Mr D. L. Baumfleld. told the committee it was wrong to recognise newspapers as an extension of the Government’s foreign policy, that what appeared in a newspaper might have influence on Government policy. The primary argument by supporters of the bill of “a sinister influence from abroad” was nonsense, Mr Baumfleld submitted.

A paper controlled by overseas interests would be staffed either by foreigners or by New Zealanders. The latter was more likely, said Mr Baumfleld, and if so, it meant the bill suggested there was no confidence in the journalists of New Zealand. If journalists had been true to their profession for this long, how real was it to suggest those journalists were going to default to standards in the face of this test? he asked. Without Notes At this juncture, a member of the committee, Mr R. D. Muldoon (Govt., Tamaki) said the Journalists’ Association was presenting “a tremendous amount of material” without written notes for the Parliamentarians. He said it was impossible to absorb the meaning unless submissions were given in writing. Continuing, Mr Baumfleld told the committee the Journalists’ Association had seen a representative of Lord Thomson and had come to agreement with him. Journalists had received what they thought to be all necessary safeguards regarding the question of foreign control. Mr Baumfleld submitted the bill would place a reliance upon the continuing good will of the governing party. Newspaper proprietors would tend not to offend the Government. If newspaper owners were so anxious about the threat of overseas ownership did it not follow they would be responsive to government, he asked.

“The bill I think is an insult to the New Zealand public if there is inherent In it the opinion they can be gulled,” Mr Baumfleld said. Public Opinion A newspaper stood or fell by what the public thought of it, anJ inferior newspapers did not survive in New Zealand. “I would earnestly submit this bill should be deferred.” As a member of the Journalists’ Association, Mr lan Cross appeared before the committee to make submissions on three points. The proposed legislation was against the public interest. The bill contained inconsistencies. The bill contained thought repugnant to free thinking.

On the second point, Mr Cross submitted that now nearly all overseas news and feature articles published in New Zealand newspapers were products of overseas interests, There also was an inconsistency in that the measure overlooked publication of the New Zealand weekly magazine, “Time,” owned by Mr Henry Luce, of New York, and published in Auckland. He said this magazine was “probably the most influential

publication” in New Zealand on world affairs.

The Attorney-General (Mr Hanan) and Sir Leslie Munro (Govt., Waipa) said that under the measure, there could be republication but not publication. In the lengthy question period which followed, Mr Muldoon asked Mr Baumfleld how much of what he had told the committee was designed for it, and how much was designed for the press. It was all for the committee, replied Mr Baumfleld. Mr Muldoon then referred to what he said were “emotional and picturesque” terms used by the journalist in his submissions. Mr Baumfleld said he was not aware of having used such terms. Mr Muldoon: The last comments you made were for effect. Who were they going to affect? Mr Baumfleld: The committee. Mr Muldoon: You perhaps weren't thinking in terms of a wider influence? Mr Baumfleld: I’m giving evidence in a conscientious way on a matter about which our association feels strongly. Mr Muldoon: It is remarkable in the face of all these arguments made by your association there is a bill at all. Mr Baumfleld: It is remarkable.

Questioned by Mr Muldoon,

Mr Gridley said: “We are here because it is our conscience that brings us here.” ■ He said the association had not been motivated by sectional or selfish interests. Mr Muldoon then asked the journalists if they knew, from experiences overseas, of any instances when news had been slanted. Mr Cross said there was the possibility there had been instances where policy of the newspaper resulted in emphasis on certain aspects of news. Mr Muldoon: You’re postulating a world-wide lily-white press. Later Mr Gridley told the committee the association strongly opposed monopolistic tendencies, and did not support the bill at all. “We are just as afraid of control by one New Zealand source of New Zealand newspapers.” Mr Hanan: The bill would stop one newspaper chain overseas taking over all the newspapers of New Zealand Yes or no? Mr Gridley: Yes. Mr R. E. Jack (Govt., Waimarine) asked if the New Zealand Press Association would be jeopardised if news could be cabled from overseas outside the press association. Mr Gridley: I don’t think it would. Sir Leslie Munro: There would be chaos. Sir Leslie Munro told the

journalists, in reply to their earlier submissions there were now opportunities for New Zealanders to gain experience as journalists overseas.

Mr Baumfield said the question ought to be considered in relation to the opportunity for New Zealanders to report overseas for New Zealand consumption. Was there anyone better to report overseas events for New Zealand than New Zealanders? “Perhaps someone who understands them (overseas events)," said Mr Muldoon. Printing Moves Dr. A. M. Finlay (Opp., Waitakere) asked the journalists if they believed that recent developments in printing and allied trades made it more possible for a national daily newspaper to be established in New Zealand. Mr Gridley said he believed a national daily would come to this country, perhaps in his lifetime. Mr Peart’s Visit Dr. Finlay asked if the journalists believed the visit recently of Mr Peart, British Minister of Agriculture, had been fully probed. Mr Baumfield said he believed the visit had been fully covered. It had not been one involving negotiations or any major decisions, he said. Dr. Finlay asked if any newspaper had gone out of its way to question Mr Peart closely and get beyond generalities. Mr Gridley said reporters attending a press conference given by Mr Peart in Wellington had done their best to get beyond generalities. Dr. Finlay: On the interview level, yes, but on the interpretative level? It was one of the functions of a newspaper to interpret, he said. Mr Baumfield conceded that New Zealand newspapers did “far too little” in that way. Dr. Finlay asked if the journalists agreed with the estimate of Mr O. S. Hintz, editor of the “New Zealand Herald,” that about £5 million would be needed to start, a new daily newspaper in | New Zealand. Mr Baumfleld agreed, and. Dr. Finlay asked him if that j would be possible without overseas capital. Mr Baumfield replied that a' stock and station agent or [ insurance company could provide capital. Which Evil ? Which was the worse evil. ■ a newspaper under the con-! trol of Lord Thomson, a freezing company, an insurance company or a stock and station agency? asked Dr. Finlay. Mr Baumfield: The degree of peril would be related to the quality of staff attracted. If New Zealand journalists were serving New Zealand there would be no peril. In reply to Mr H. G. R. Mason (Opp., New Lynn) Mr Gridley said the bill would tend to limit standards of journalism. It also would bring about complacency and stagnation. Sir Leslie Munro asked Mr Baumfield if Lord Thomson’s representative had indicated to the Journalists’ Association he would join the Press Association. Join N.P.A. Lord Thomson had said specifically he would join the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association, but if this militated against the full coverage he wanted, he would withdraw, replied Mr Baumfield. Mr Mason said the Press

Association amounted to something in the nature of a monopoly or restriction of foreign news. Mr Muldoon said the Journalists’ Association had said it would not object to machinery being set up to deal with any circumstance likely to arise. “What sort of machinery is this?” Mr Turnbull said the association had been thinking of something analogous to the Trade Practices Tribunal where evidence by members of the public could be given so that merits of the particular case in the public interest could be determined. The tribunal would function when an application was made to publish in New Zealand, not after the newspaper had been set up.

Annual income £2O, annual expenditure £l9 19s 6d, result happiness. Annual income £2O, annual expenditure £2O 0s 6d, result misery.—Charles Dickens, “David Copperfield "